The stores with one of the better return policies is 3,000 miles from me in New York, B&H and Adorama. I live in Southern California and one of the few reliable stores here is Samys; it is a small chain here and they do not accept returns only store credit.

No love for the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D here? I know it's discontinued, but KEH has several used, in-stock, right now. I recently picked one up on Ebay in mint-condition--it's very sharp wide-open. Niko: any opinions on how it compares with your "top three" short UWA-zooms? (Although I also own the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED, it's so big and heavy, I never take it anywhere.)

studio460 said:
No love for the AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D here? I know it's discontinued, but KEH has several used, in-stock, right now. I recently picked one up on Ebay in mint-condition--it's very sharp wide-open. Niko: any opinions on how it compares with your "top three" short UWA-zooms? (Although I also own the AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D ED, it's so big and heavy, I never take it anywhere.)

Given that this thread was mostly discussing DX lenses and the D90, the 18mm 2.8 is basically worthless.

gelu88 said:
Given that this thread was mostly discussing DX lenses and the D90, the 18mm 2.8 is basically worthless.

but yes, for FX the 18 2.8 is a great deal.

The thread's title doesn't necessarily mean that the discussion is restricted to DX-only lenses. Granted, the title says, "for D90," but I have a D90, and don't own a single DX lens. Why would you say the 18mm is "basically worthless?" It's a 27mm-equivalent, and a lot lighter and more compact than the Nikkor 14mm. I think the 18mm is actually a pretty versatile length on a DX body, and it's lighter and more compact than a fast, short-zoom.

That said, had the short, DX zooms been available at the time I bought the Nikkor 14mm (were they? I bought the 14mm in 2005), I may have been happier with one of the DX UWA-zooms instead, although I do love my new 18mm fixed lens. In fact, I may dump the 14mm someday and buy one of Niko's "top three" to save on weight.

I would be very curious to know which of the following lenses is sharpest at say, f/11, at the equivalent focal lengths of both 14mm and 18mm:

I would probably be leaning toward either the non-DX, 16-35mm, VR lens myself, if only for its VR feature, or, more likely, the 14-24mm f/2.8 for its speed and shorter minimum focal length. Then again, the 10-24mm DX lens sure looks like the most "fun."

So, all else being equal, it may come down to this: of the two short, near-equally priced DX zooms (10-24mm f/4.5-3.5G DX, and 12-24mm f/4.0G DX), which one is sharpest at f/11? And, why did Nikon make two lenses so close in both price and focal length?

Thanks for posting that link on the Sigma 8-16mm review. It seems, from looking at the sample images, that the heavy astigmatism, does in fact impact sharpness to a large degree. Based on those images, I would give this lens a pass, and continue with my Tokina purchase. Does everyone (who has examined LensTip's Sigma images) kind of agree? I'm all amped to get the Tokina 11-16mm now, but when I saw the Sigma link, I thought, "Whoa!" If anyone has found any other anecdotal or empirical data comparing the two, at fairly stopped-down apertures (e.g., f/8-f/11), in addition to the LensTip reviews, I'd love to hear about it!

It doesn't quite make sense to me. How can the Sigma's MTF be so high? It bests the Tokina's MTF data across the board. I mean, MTF is MTF, right? You can either attain a high MTF, or you can't, right?

Yes, I've become quite a fan of Regulator's architectural shots since joining NR!

Well, I did it! I've seen the light . . . I pulled the trigger, late last night, on B+H's site. My brand-spankin' new Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 will be here in two days! Woo hoo! I also ordered a refurbished 18-55mm VR "kit lens" to regain my 18mm focal length, but with added VR stability. After getting my 80-400mm VR lens a few weeks ago (my first VR lens ever), I vowed to only start buying new Nikkor VR lenses from now on. I'll have the 18-55mm VR (which I'll likely shoot only at 18mm, at f/8-f/11), a new AF-S 85mm f/1.4G VR (hope to hell the rumors are right!), and my 80-400mm VR, that I already have, to complete my focal-length range. The Tokina UWA, and my trusty 'ole AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D will be the only non-VR lenses I'll tote around from now on. (That is, if Nikon comes through with the 85mm f/1.4 VR--please, Nikon, PLEASE!)

Even though I have good handheld technique, I now realize that the VR feature is worth its weight in gold for attaining high-percentage shots that are always tack-sharp. I'll soon be relegating both my AF Nikkor 14mm f/2.8D, and AF Nikkor 18mm f/2.8D for exclusive use with my future, FX-body Nikon. Whatever that will be . . .

That is awesome, studio. Don't sell it short on FX, either, though. I've heard it works as a 16mm 2.8 prime even on FX—below 15mm the image circle won't cover FX, but at 16 it does. I'm planning on getting one next month even though I also plan on going FF soon. If I've got a DX body as backup I'd like to have it anyway and that would be the perfect complement to a D700 replacement with a 24-70 2.8 VR. Both of those are just dreams now, but I think Nikon's going to update that lens with VR soon.

A wide angle (I'm thinking the tokina 11-16, hah) is third on my list of things to get (which will be awhile as I am afterall a "broke college student"). The only thing I would like to know, and I know I could fgure this out myself, but maybe you guys can help out, I would like to know the close focusing distances of the main wide angle's being discussed in this thread.

I like my Tokina 11-16 for all the reasons already stated in this thread.

One thing that hasn't been touched on here is the landscape part of your question. I think that the use of a UWA for landscapes is a matter of personal style or if you want that particular wide angle look for your landscapes. I have used many different focal lengths for landscapes that I have taken. 11mm up to 210mm (DX), just depends on how far away I am from the field of view that I want in frame. The large aperture is a moot point because you want a small aperture to get as much of the scene in focus as possible. Landscapes stay still so you can get out the tripod and keep that shutter open for as long as you need to.

ithurtswhenipee said:
One thing that hasn't been touched on here is the landscape part of your question. I think that the use of a UWA for landscapes is a matter of personal style or if you want that particular wide angle look for your landscapes. I have used many different focal lengths for landscapes that I have taken. 11mm up to 210mm (DX),

I agree with ithurtswhenipee - If you want to show depth in your photo go wide, if you want to flatten the image go long. I find most of my country landscape is 75mm - 180mm, (FX) my city landscapes are more the 24mm - 50mm (FX).